I found something I like about France!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 14 2007, 12:18 PM) [snapback]405397[/snapback]</div>

He's just not looking a gift horse in the mouth. Of course, the other end of a mule is a different matter, apparently.... :lol:

But... did he call the mule the next morning?

Take her to the prom?

Brag to his buddies about it?

 

Tell us Daron, what do you support? Any of these "horrible moral choices"?

By your own statements, you've shown us that you don't support gay marriage or any of these other choices... so who is the close minded individual here?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hobbs @ Mar 14 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]405366[/snapback]</div>

52nd state - Puerto Rico is 51st

civil partnerships are legal here in many states too - even civil unions - state referendums on gay marriage have not been treated well though.

tell me, is it true they are building the worlds largest mosque in london?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 14 2007, 11:17 AM) [snapback]405358[/snapback]</div>

didn't monica give informed consent?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 14 2007, 12:35 PM) [snapback]405410[/snapback]</div>

Because, quite simply, homosexuality is NOT:
a. horrible
b. moral (or immoral) - it just is
c. a choice (see b.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 14 2007, 12:05 PM) [snapback]405388[/snapback]</div>

what are you guys fishing for - gay marriage? Ok, how do you want to get it established in the US of A? Do you want it by referendum or judicial fiat?

 

Why all this fuss about marriage, gay or otherwise? Outside the church, marriage is just a legal contract. Many societies support many types of contracts that many different groups of people can use to protect certain rights they want as a group. Isn't marriage just one of many examples of this, where the 'group' just happens to be two people and the protection is about sharing their lives, financially and otherwise? The contract then just happens to be called a marriage certificate.

Greenpeace is a foundation, under a different type of contract, but in essence, just a group of people that got together and decided to use this type of contract to protect their common interests and pursue their common goals. Toyota is a commercial company, a complex example of many contracts and many people but essentially no different.

As people find new ways to form groups for whatever reasons to pursue whatever interests, societies may need to invent new types of contracts to protect the common interests of such groups - if they manage to get their interests on the political agenda. Maybe some day there will be some type of special contract to protect a pet when something happens to its owner. I'm sure it would not be called a marriage.

Greetings from a country that has a political party for Animal rights, with two seats in parliament.

 

I don't know about the others, but I've made my position rather clear. Marriage itself is a religious institution that the government has incorporated, due to the high percentage of married couples in the nation.

The government offers legal benefits to couples if they marry. As far as the government is concerned, this is due to the submission of certain paperwork that declares a couple to be married, not due to a certain ceremony being performed. These same benefits should be offered to any legally consenting couple that submits the paperwork, not just to heterosexual couples.

The reason gay marriage has faired so poorly in so many states is because of the notion it gives to the voters. by calling it such, a voter instantly thinks "I don't want gays marrying in my church" and votes against the concept of gay marriage, even though the two have nothing to do with each other.

So in short, i want the same privileges, benefits, and responsibilities extended to gay couples that straight couples currently enjoy, whatever the state wishes to call it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lowlander @ Mar 14 2007, 12:05 PM) [snapback]405435[/snapback]</div>

Actually, there already is. It's perfectly legal for an individual to list in their will who they want their pet to go to, as well as specify funds to go to the benefit and care for the animal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lowlander @ Mar 14 2007, 01:05 PM) [snapback]405435[/snapback]</div>

i think we will let old europe sink into history's dust bin at an ever accelerating rate... negative birth rate, Godless, economies in the dumpsters, and a radicalized non assimilated Muslim population that is growing at what should be alarming rates... and now pets in their legislature - how do they vote, by barking or do they tap their paws one for yea and twice for nea :lol: they next thing you know they will try enforcing 35 hour work weeks, co2 limits on their auto industry, and expand financing to airbus's latest greatest must have the biggest pie in the sky the A380 - any of those bad boys up and running yet

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 14 2007, 09:43 AM) [snapback]405299[/snapback]</div>

Boy, this thread sure polarized folks into 2 camps. Fact is, folks like to be joiners. And Joiners (or groups, or clubs or businesses) like to say who can and who can NOT be in their group. The J.D.L. doesn't want any taliban members, the K.K.K. doesn't want any Jews, the girl scouts don't want any 48 year old pediphilers, the Mens club doesn't want any women, the religionists who made up marriage don't want homosexuals stealing THEIR union label concept . . . any more than if you or I created a computer operating system ... then try and market it as microsoft. You're diluting another group's idea ... their brand ... their concept. If you force the opra club to join the metal heads ... you dilute their meaning. Make up your own group, or club, or brand ... and leave the other brand alone. Is that so hard? I guess so.

 

LOL, this still makes me laugh very hard even though it's been over a year since he wrote it
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jan 22 2006, 05:40 PM) [snapback]195477[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 14 2007, 12:08 PM) [snapback]405437[/snapback]</div>

So, your explanation is that all the voters who voted against it in all the states were too stupid to recognize the difference between a church-sanctioned marriage and a state-sanctioned one?

Please, give them more credit than that. Much more likely that the majority of them knew EXACTLY what they were voting against, and did so.

 

Thats funny... I don't think he got a single fact right in that entire post!

For the record, the German Beer Purity Law has been "on the books" since 1516 (much more than 200 years). It states that nothing other than barley, hops and water should be used to brew beer. And yet some very popular beers use much more than this now. In fact, Budweiser uses rice in it's brews.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DelerPrius @ Mar 14 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]405460[/snapback]</div>

You give people way too much credit. a vast majority of voters aren't aware of the specifics of the issue. A vast majority vote strictly along party lines. A vast majority do practically no research prior to going to the polls. And finally, a vast majority are heavily influenced by political advertising campaigns.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 14 2007, 01:30 PM) [snapback]405459[/snapback]</div>

you have problems

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DelerPrius @ Mar 14 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]405460[/snapback]</div>

you know, the only smart well informed citizens are liberals who want what they want even if they are in the minority.

 

Daron, people would really be surprised that our laws were originally based on the biblical standards.

I see more and more how the end is really going to be when the "man of lawlessness" is revealed.

People think things are bad now, just wait for "this man" to show up.

Bible says that the "spirit of the antichrist" is working in secret and boy is he doing overtime.

You may not see him physically, but just take a good LOOK at the shape the world is in.

The Lord is going to show people just how bad it can get when there are no restraints.

It will be just like it was in Noah's time.

God has already sent His help. The thing is many are seriously blind, and there will be no turning back unless people confess their sins so God can heal their land.

When it gets really, really bad, I am not even sure if people will make the connection.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hobbs @ Mar 14 2007, 10:01 AM) [snapback]405345[/snapback]</div>

Just because society thinks it's right doesn't mean that it is MORALLY RIGHT.

People will have to answer to a higher, MUCH higher being when all is said and done.

Ever wonder why Rome, Sodom, and Gormmorah fell? Ever wonder why all of civilization was wiped out with the exception of one family?

IF THE MARRIAGE BREAKS DOWN AS SET FORTH BY BIBILCAL DEFINITIONS, WATCH OUT!!!

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! YOU ARE HEADED DOWN THE WRONG PATH!

IT WILL ONLY LEAD TO ALL SORTS OF HEARTACHE AND DEATH AND DISEASES AND BLOODSHED!!!

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

IT WILL DEFINITELY LEAD TO THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 14 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]405474[/snapback]</div>

you are a mental case, but everybody knows that

 

I don't seem to recall anyone saying anything was wrong except for you... The most i ever said was that certain things were against the law and would still be against the law when gay marriage is finally allowed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 14 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]405579[/snapback]</div>

how do you believe it will become legal - referendum or judicial fiat?

 

Time for this oldie but goodie: